4.7 Article

A universal stellar mass-size relation of galaxies in the GOODS-North region

期刊

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20674.x

关键词

galaxies: evolution; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: high-redshift; infrared: galaxies

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan [21244012]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21244012, 23740152] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present scaling relations between the stellarmass (M-*) and size of galaxies at 0.3 < z < 3 for half-light (R-50) and 90 per cent-light (R-90) radii, using a deep K-band-selected catalogue taken with the Subaru Telescope and Multi-Object Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (MOIRCS) in the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS)-North region. The logarithmic slope R proportional to M-*(0.1-0.2) is independent of redshift in a wide mass range of M-* similar to 10(8)-10(11) M-circle dot, irrespective of galaxy populations (star forming and quiescent). The offset change is less than or similar to 50 per cent. Provided that optical light in the rest frame traces the stellar mass of galaxies, the universal relation demonstrates that the stellar mass was built up in galaxies over their cosmic histories in a similar manner on average, irrespective of galaxy mass. The small offset in each stellar mass bin from the universal relation shows weak size evolution at a given mass. There is a moderate increase of 30-50 per cent for R-50 and R-90 for less massive galaxies (M-* < 10(10) M-circle dot) from z similar to 3 to 1, while the sizes remain unchanged or slightly decreased towards z similar to 0.3. For massive galaxies (M-* similar to 10(11) M-circle dot), the evolution increases by similar to 70-80 per cent in R-90 from z similar to 3 to 0.3, though it is weaker in R-50. The evolution of compactness factor, R-50/R-90, which becomes smaller at lower redshift, is suggestive of minor merging effect in the outer envelope of massive galaxies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据